Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAJESH RAI K
State Of Karnataka Department Of Revenue – Appellant
Versus
B.R. Chandramma Since Dead By Lr. – Respondent
ORDER :
Rajesh Rai K, J.
The State has called in question the correctness of the order dated 12.03.2018 in RRT(2)(A)CR.29/09-10 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner-2, Bangalore North Sub- Division, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, whereby the Special Deputy Commissioner-2 dropped the proceedings based on the reference made by the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk in respect of land bearing Sy.No.64/P40 measuring 2 acres situated at Bhoothanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk.
2. The abridged facts of the case are that, one Eeraiah and five others were granted land in Sy.No.64 totally measuring 12 acres situated at Bhoothanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk and among them, the said Eeraiah had granted 2 acres of land vide grant order No.186/49-50 dated 28.04.1950. Subsequently, the said Eeraiah was in possession and enjoyment of said land. He alienated the said land in favour of one Doddaramaiah vide Sale Deed dated 09.05.1968 in respect of the said property. Based on the said registered Sale Deed, the said Doddaramaiah in-turn sold the said land to respondent No.1 herein vide Sale Deed dated 17.09.1985. Ever since then, respondent No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of
State's delayed challenge to the land grant lacks merit as no substantiating evidence was presented, affirming the integrity of rights established over decades.
The court affirmed that a revision petition under the ROR Act can be filed without a time limit, emphasizing the need for a fresh enquiry into land ownership claims, especially in cases of alleged fr....
The court ruled that delayed administrative actions undermining property rights must be resolved through civil courts, emphasizing the importance of timely legal recourse.
Point of law: inordinate delay and laches in prosecuting their grievance disentitles them to seek equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The delay of 11 years in exercising suo motu powers renders such actions arbitrary, violating established legal rights under registered sale deeds.
The court established that powers under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act must be exercised within a reasonable time, and unreasonable delays invalidate such actions.
Point of Law : where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
